Why does the Bible say that Whales are Fish?

    

    "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
~Jonah 1:17 King James Version (KJV) [Emphasis Added]

    "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.

    "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas (Jonah): For as Jonas (Jonah) was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
~Matthew 12:38-40 King James Version (KJV) [Emphasis Added]

    To some, the discrepancy between both of these passages is evidence not only of the Bible's lack of scientific knowledge, but also proof of an internal contradiction within the text of scripture. Jonah 1:17 clearly says that Jonah was swallowed by a fish. While Jesus claims that the reluctant prophet spent three days in the belly of a whale when referencing this passage in Matthew 12:38-40. Both of these objections are a bit beside the point however when one considers how a man could survive in the stomach of anything for three days aside from a miraculous act of God.
    That being said, this article is going to focus on answering the following questions: Is there a contradiction between the Book of Jonah and the Gospel of Matthew, and does the Bible really claim that whales are fish?
 

    In the original Hebrew, the word used to describe the creature that swallowed Jonah is dāḡ (דָּ֣ג), which is translated as fish in English. In the specific case of Jonah 1:17, dāḡ is accompanied by the adjective gā·ḏō·wl  (גָּד֔וֹל) which means great or large. Therefore the literal reading of the Hebrew text states that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish. 

    Likewise, the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is kétos (κῆτος), which can refer to any large creature that swims in the sea. Naturally, both fish and whales fall into this category. So rendering the word kétos as either great fish or whale in English is a perfectly acceptable translation. This is why most modern English translations of the Bible, aside from the King James Version, use great fish or huge fish when translating both of these passages. (ie. The New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New International Version etc.) 

    Another fact worth mentioning is that no ancient culture classified animals using our modern system of taxonomic classification. The scientific method of classification that we use today was first invented by the Swedish zoologist Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century. Before this time, many  people classified animals based largely on their behavioral characteristics and habitat rather than their physical traits and similarities to each other. For this reason, Jews and Greeks alike placed whales and fish in the same category in ancient times, as both were animals that lived in the water. The only difference was in the size of the animal in question. Which, as we observed, was specified by the adjectives used to describe said animal. 

    In short, the Bible does not claim that whales are fish. The Book of Jonah is written in Hebrew and uses the proper language of the day to describe any large sea creature. Likewise the Gospel of Mathew uses the equivalent Greek terminology. Therefore there is no conflict between the two in their original languages, as both writings are using essentially the same terminology in their respective language.    

 

See Also:

Why does the Bible say that Bats are Birds?
Do Christians Believe in Talking Animals?  

Why is it Evil to Rape and Murder?

    Over the last five years I have devoted much of my writings to answering the challenges of skeptics. Today however I am going to break with tradition and issue a challenge of my own. This challenge is not meant to single out or attack any one person, but is a legitimate question that I feel deserves serious consideration. That said, my challenge to the skeptic is this: Why is it morally wrong to rape and murder?

    According to many atheists and skeptics of Christianity, morality is simply an evolved social characteristic that allows our species to survive and reproduce. However, if the philosophies of Materialism, Naturalism, and Reductionisim are true, then out of all of the sins listed in the Bible and all of the evils committed by man, rape and murder should be the least concerning.
 
    Most animals mate forcibly in the wild. Some species, like ducks, even form "rape gangs" with multiple males forcibly mating with a single female at one time. If humans really are just highly evolved animals, then why is it morally wrong to rape in order to reproduce? If morality exists to ensure the survival of the species, and free will is merely an illusion of our "selfish genes," then it should be perfectly acceptable for a man to spread as much of his genetic material as possible by any means possible. Including rape.

    Another example found in nature is that of the African Lion. When a male lion takes over a pride, the first thing that he does after running off the previous male is kill all of the cubs to ensure that his own genes will be the only genes passed on to the next generation. If successful reproduction is the measure by which we judge what is good for a species, then what is to keep one man from killing another, murdering his children, and then forcibly impregnating the other man's wife in order to ensure the survival of his genes? If humans really are just "wet robots" at the mercy of DNA, then this sort of behavior should be perfectly acceptable.

    Additionally, if the survival of a species is the ultimate goal of life, then would it not be in the best interest of society to kill off all of the weaker individuals with less desirable genes in order for individuals within that society to gain an evolutionary edge over their competition? Is it really genocide for the more advanced forms of a species to kill off and replace the more primitive forms? Or is it simply natural selection in motion?

    My position on rape and murder is that both are morally evil. But unlike the skeptic, my position is built on the foundational presupposition that objective moral good exists and is found not in biology, but in God. God and His Word are the standard by which I judge what is good and what is evil. Since mankind is created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), it is morally evil to violate another person by raping them. Likewise, it is an act of moral evil to murder someone. This is why both rape and murder carried the death penalty in the Old Testament. (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, Deuteronomy 22:25-27) Furthermore, since humans are spiritual creatures made in God's image, we are born with an innate sense of morality regardless of religious background, culture or ethnicity. (Romans 2:14-15)

    Now, I hope it is clear to the reader that I am not claiming that all skeptics are immoral simply because they are skeptical of religion. There are plenty of moral people in the world who deny the existence of God. However I do not believe that the existence of objective morality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Individuals may be moral people while maintaining the belief that God does not exist. But they cannot justify their inborn sense of morality without forcing theistic principles into their otherwise naturalistic worldview.

    That being said, the burden of proof now lies with the skeptic. If good and evil don't really exist, and morality really is just an evolved social trait that can be reduced down to simple bio-chemistry, then why should anyone view rape and murder as being morally evil?
 

See Also:

Did God Create Evil?

The Nature of Truth

Sex Slavery and the Bible

Did God Create Evil?

    If God created everything, does that mean that God also created evil?

    This is a common argument that skeptics of the Bible and Christianity will make to defend their position that God does not exist. Some of the more biblically knowledgeable skeptics are also quick to point out Isaiah 45:7 as a case in point of both God's lack of moral character and a glaring contradiction in the Bible and Christian theology.

 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
~ Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV) [Emphasis Added]
 
    How can God be morally good yet also be responsible for creating evil? Is this an example of a biblical contradiction as the skeptic claims?
 
    As so often happens with alleged Bible contradictions, the confusion stems from a linguistic misunderstanding. In this case, it is a misunderstanding of the word evil.
    In Isaiah 45:7, the word translated as evil in English is the Hebrew word Ra` (רָ֑ע). The most common usage of Ra` is in regards to moral evil. However, as with English, this is not the only usage of the word. Ra` can also mean calamity, distress, trouble or even that something is simply bad. For example, in the New Living Translation of Lamentations 38-39 Ra` is translated as calamity while in Job 2:10 Ra` is used in reference to bad times or times of trouble and hardship. However, the King James translation of both of these verses  translates Ra` as evil. This is because when the King James Bible was translated in 1611 the word evil could also mean calamity, disaster, or trouble, not just moral evil. However in modern English, evil refers almost exclusively to moral evil. 
    Understanding this, we have additional evidence within the text of Isaiah 45:7 to indicate that the broader meaning of Ra` is being used. In Isaiah 45:1-6 God is declaring himself to be the only true God. Verses 5-7 use contrasting imagery to showcase God's power and majesty. God alone created light and darkness. God alone makes peace. But what is the contrast to peace? Moral evil? No. Peace and security are contrasted by war and calamity. Not moral evil. This is why most modern English translations of the Bible substitute evil—which could mean calamity or disaster in 1611—with either calamity or disaster. Or, in the case of the New Living Translation, bad times.

  "I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things."
~ Isaiah 45:7 New Living Translation (NLT) [Emphasis Added]

    So then, does Isaiah 45:7 teach that God creates moral evil? Not in the least. This passage is about God's sovereignty over both peace and security and times of calamity and trouble. Furthermore, contrary to the arguments of the skeptic, the existence of moral evil in the world is not evidence against God's existence, rather it is evidence for God's existence.  
    Without an objective standard of morality, no one would be able to distinguish between that which is morally good and that which is morally evil. Good and evil would be completely subjective. Not only that, without being able to appeal to a higher moral standard, law and justice both become arbitrary. Whatever is morally acceptable to one person becomes that person's standard of good. One person may believe it is perfectly acceptable to beat and rob another. But without objective morality, no one can say for certain that such actions are morally wrong. Therefore, there cannot be moral evil without the existence of a transcendent standard of moral good that applies to all people for all time. The view posited by Christianity is that God is that standard. Since God is the standard by which we judge what is good, anything that is contrary to God's character is morally evil. This evil is what the Bible calls sin.  
    Because God is good, he cannot allow evil in any form to go unpunished. And since God's holiness is the standard of what is good, God's justice applies to everyone. God is the ultimate morally objective judge. This is why God sent Jesus to die for our sins. As the man Jesus Christ, God took upon Himself the judgment for the sins of all mankind so that through Jesus He could offer forgiveness and mercy to those who would be willing to turn from their sins and place their trust in Him. (Romans 5:6-11)

   The existence of moral evil in the world and the fact that such evil is recognizable does not definitively prove that God exists. It is simply one more piece of evidence that points to God. And while God does not create moral evil, it is logically impossible for one to posit that genuine moral evil exists without also admitting the existence of objective moral good.






   

Body and Blood: Do Christians Practice Ritual Cannibalism?

   

    "...Jesus said again, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you...'"
~John 6:52 New Living Translation (NLT)


     It is not uncommon for those who are skeptical of Christianity to read this passage and come away wondering what Jesus meant when he said that his followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. Indeed, many have read this verse and come to the conclusion that Christians practice ritual cannibalism.
     Adding to the skeptic's confusion is the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation which holds that the bread and wine used during the Eucharist is transformed into the literal blood and body of Jesus Christ. This view however, while wide-spread within Catholicism, is a relatively recent addition to Catholic doctrine.
    The earliest possible mention of Transubstantiation is found in 2nd Century Christian writing known as the Didache —though its references to the Eucharist could just as easily be elaborations on the teachings found in the New Testament scriptures, (ie. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34) and does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that early Christians revered the bread and wine as the literal body and blood of Christ. 
    That being said, there are other Christian writings from the 3rd and 4th centuries that depict a trend in Roman Catholic teachings toward the present interpretation that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are supernaturally transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. However the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not adopted as the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church until the 11th Century AD.
     All that to say, history shows that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation evolved over time, and was not the belief held by early Christians. Nor was it taught by any of the Apostles of Christ to which a careful examination of scriptures will attest. 

    Jesus and his Twelve Apostles were Jewish. This matter of historical fact is something that the early Christians and medieval church tried very hard to distance themselves from. As a result, much of the cultural significance behind Jesus' ministry was overlooked.

    According to the Old Testament, touching a dead human body or consuming blood would make a person ceremonially unclean and could potentially result in that person being cut off from the community of Israel. (Leviticus 17:13-14, Numbers 19:11-16, Deuteronomy 12:23-25) Therefore, if the wine and bread Jesus shared with his disciples during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-28) was literally human flesh and blood, Peter would not have been able to say what he did in Acts:10:

    "The next day as Cornelius’s messengers were nearing the town, Peter went up on the flat roof to pray. It was about noon, and he was hungry. But while a meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the sky open, and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds. Then a voice said to him, 'Get up, Peter; kill and eat them.'

    "'No, Lord,' Peter declared. 'I have never eaten anything that our Jewish laws have declared impure and unclean.'"
~ Acts 10:1-14 New Living Translation (NLT) [Emphasis Added]

    Additionally, we must remember that the Last Supper of Christ was the Passover Feast commemorating Israel's deliverance from slavery in Egypt. (Exodus 12) Every part of the Passover Feast was highly symbolic. Bitter herbs to symbolize the bitterness of slavery. A roasted lamb to represent God's judgment. And a cup of wine and bread to symbolize the blood and bodies of the lambs that were slain during the first Passover. 
    It was this cup and this bread that Jesus used when he said: "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me... This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it."
 
    This is where the skeptic who holds that Christianity copied the Lord's Supper from contemporary pagan rights is in error. The Lord's Supper was not pagan in origin, it was distinctly Jewish. 
    As the Passover Lamb of God (John 1:29-30) Jesus took a symbolic meal meant to commemorate the Jew's deliverance from bondage in Egypt and gave it a new meaning. The blood of lambs had been painted on the doorposts of Israel in Egypt so that God's judgment would pass over them. Jesus' blood would be shed on the cross in the place of sinners in order that they might be delivered from God's condemnation. (Romans 8:1-4) The Passover Feast commemorated when God delivered Israel from the bondage of slavery. The Lord's Supper commemorates when Jesus fulfilled the Passover and delivered the world from bondage to sin and death. (Romans 5:1-11, Hebrews 10:1-18)

    So then, was Jesus teaching his followers to practice ritual cannibalism? Hardly. As the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, Jesus took existing symbolism and gave it an entirely new meaning. The same can be said of the passage I quoted from John 6 at the beginning of this article. When viewed in the proper context, Jesus' meaning becomes clear.

    "The next day the crowd that had stayed on the far shore saw that the disciples had taken the only boat, and they realized Jesus had not gone with them. Several boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the Lord had blessed the bread and the people had eaten. So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went across to Capernaum to look for him. They found him on the other side of the lake and asked, 'Rabbi, when did you get here?'

    "Jesus replied, 'I tell you the truth, you want to be with me because I fed you, not because you understood the miraculous signs. But don’t be so concerned about perishable things like food. Spend your energy seeking the eternal life that the Son of Man can give you. For God the Father has given me the seal of his approval.'

    "They replied, 'We want to perform God’s works, too. What should we do?'

    "Jesus told them, 'This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.'

    "They answered, 'Show us a miraculous sign if you want us to believe in you. What can you do? After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! The Scriptures say, ‘Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"

    "Jesus said, 'I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the true bread from heaven. The true bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.'

    "'Sir,' they said, 'give us that bread every day.'

    "Jesus replied, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them. For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do my own will. And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. For it is my Father’s will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.'

    "Then the people began to murmur in disagreement because he had said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' They said, 'Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? We know his father and mother. How can he say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

    "But Jesus replied, 'Stop complaining about what I said. For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up. As it is written in the Scriptures, 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.  (Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.)

     "'I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life. Yes, I am the bread of life! Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness, but they all died. Anyone who eats the bread from heaven, however, will never die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.'

    "Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' they asked.

    "So Jesus said again, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.  But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.'"
~John 6:22-58 New Living Translation (NLT) [Emphasis Added]

    Having read this passage in the proper context, can when honestly claim that Jesus is teaching the Apostles that the wine and bread of the Eucharist are his literal flesh and blood? Do these verses of scripture show that Christians need to literally eat Jesus' body and drink his blood in order to gain eternal life? Not at all! Jesus is using food and drink as a metaphor for spiritual truths in this passage, just as he did with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:1-42. Jesus is not literally a spring of water (John 7:37-39), and he is not literally a loaf of bread from heaven. He is not literally a gate or a shepherd. (John 10:9-16) Nor is he literally a lamb. Likewise a person is not literally born a second time when they become a Christian. (John 3:1-21) 
    It is clear from the context of the scriptures that Jesus is speaking metaphorically in all of these instances. Why then should we conclude that Jesus taught people that they were to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood when the context indicates otherwise?

    In conclusion: does the Christian who celebrates the Lord's Supper really participate in ritual cannibalism stolen from pagan rituals and mysteries? Or is he simply partaking in a symbolic remembrance of his Lord and Savior? In light of the historic, cultural and biblical evidence the answer should be obvious. 

    Jesus did not command his followers to literally eat his flesh and blood. Nor is the consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood necessary for salvation. The Lord's Supper is meant to be eaten with reverence as a symbolic remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf until the day he returns. 




    

See Also: 

Pagan Parallels: Jesus' Triumphal Entry

What Makes a Person a Christian?

    

Do Christians Believe in Talking Animals?

 

    Does the Bible teach that snakes and donkeys can talk? Many skeptics of Christianity seem to think so, including noted atheist and YouTube personality, Aron Ra. But is this accusation true? Do Christians really believe that animals can talk? And if so, does this belief prove that both Christianity and the Bible are false?

    The first point of contention between skeptics and Christians on this point is found in the account of the Fall recorded in the third chapter of the Book of Genesis.

    "The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the Lord God had made. One day he asked the woman, 'Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?'

   "'Of course we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,' the woman replied. 'It’s only the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God said, ‘You must not eat it or even touch it; if you do, you will die.’

   "'You won’t die!' the serpent replied to the woman. 'God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.'

    The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too." 
~ Genesis 3:1-6 New Living Translation (NLT)

    If one is to take this passage at face value, it would appear that a snake spoke to Eve in the garden. However, there is much more to this passage than is immediately apparent. First and foremost is the fact that this particular serpent (nachash (נָחָשׁ) in Hebrew) was "the shrewdest of all the wild animals" God had created. This indicates that this creature was unique, and quite unlike anything else in the garden. In fact, it is questionable as to whether or not this "serpent" was even part of God's physical creation at all.

     In the Book of Isaiah the Prophet we find another word used for serpent, saraph (שָׂרָף), which means "fiery serpent" or "burning one" and is used elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures to refer to poisonous snakes. (ie. Numbers 21:6 and Deuteronomy 8:15) However, in the Book of Isaiah, we find the word saraph (Usually rendered as Seraph or Seraphim in English) used to describe spiritual beings who surround the throne of God. (Isaiah 6:1-6)
    The connection between spiritual beings in Heaven and the serpent found in Genesis is further revealed in passages like Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2 which identify this ancient tempter of mankind to be none-other than Satan himself. 
    So then, was the serpent in the Garden of Eden really a snake? Or was it a fallen angel? This is a point of some debate between Christians. There are those who believe that the serpent was in fact Satan himself, while others contend that Satan merely spoke through a serpent, and was not physically present as a snake. However, the one thing that is certain is that snakes do not speak without some sort of supernatural or demonic intervention.

    The next point, that Christians believe in talking donkeys, comes from the account of Balaam found in the Book of Numbers.

     "So the next morning Balaam got up, saddled his donkey, and started off with the Moabite officials. But God was angry that Balaam was going, so he sent the angel of the Lord to stand in the road to block his way. As Balaam and two servants were riding along, Balaam’s donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand. The donkey bolted off the road into a field, but Balaam beat it and turned it back onto the road. Then the angel of the Lord stood at a place where the road narrowed between two vineyard walls. When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it tried to squeeze by and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall. So Balaam beat the donkey again. Then the angel of the Lord moved farther down the road and stood in a place too narrow for the donkey to get by at all. This time when the donkey saw the angel, it lay down under Balaam. In a fit of rage Balaam beat the animal again with his staff.

     "Then the Lord gave the donkey the ability to speak. 'What have I done to you that deserves your beating me three times?' it asked Balaam.

    "'You have made me look like a fool!' Balaam shouted. 'If I had a sword with me, I would kill you!'

    "'But I am the same donkey you have ridden all your life,' the donkey answered. 'Have I ever done anything like this before?'

    "'No,' Balaam admitted.

    "Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the roadway with a drawn sword in his hand. Balaam bowed his head and fell face down on the ground before him.

    "'Why did you beat your donkey those three times?' the angel of the Lord demanded. 'Look, I have come to block your way because you are stubbornly resisting me. Three times the donkey saw me and shied away; otherwise, I would certainly have killed you by now and spared the donkey.'

    "'Then Balaam confessed to the angel of the Lord, 'I have sinned. I didn’t realize you were standing in the road to block my way. I will return home if you are against my going.'

    "'But the angel of the Lord told Balaam, 'Go with these men, but say only what I tell you to say.' So Balaam went on with Balak’s officials."

~ Numbers 22:21-35 New Living Translation (NLT)

    As with the previous example of the serpent in Genesis, donkeys cannot speak without some sort of supernatural intervention. In this case, God Himself "gave Balaam's donkey the ability to speak." Does this mean that the Bible teaches that all donkeys can speak? Of course not! In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible records that a donkey spoke one time in history, and then only as a result of supernatural intervention on the part of God.

    In conclusion, the Bible does not teach that animals can speak, and the majority of Christians do not believe in talking animals. What is recorded in the Scriptures are two isolated events when supernatural forces temporarily overruled the natural order. These miracles, like most Biblical miracles, are exceedingly rare, one time occurrences that in no way challenge the validity or historicity of the Bible, and are not viewed by Christians to be anything less than extraordinary.
 

    

    See Also:

Why does the Bible say that Bats are Birds?

Is the Resurrection of Jesus Scientifically Impossible?

God and the Search for Evidence

The Issue of Faith: Is Faith Irrational?

    When dealing with the issue of faith, it is important to understand the meaning of faith as it applies to the biblical usage of the word. Today, the word faith generally caries with it a more or less negative connotation. A person is said to have faith when they believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary. In this modern usage, having faith means that a person is continuing to blindly believe something is true even though there is no proof. (Merrium-Webster Dictionary)  This however is a very narrow definition of faith in the English langue and is not the biblical definition of faith at all. 

    The Greek word translated as faith in English versions of the New Testament is Pistis (πίστις), which is better translated as trust and stems from the Greek word Peithô (πείθω) which means to be persuaded or convinced. Therefore, in the biblical sense, a person has faith, not out of a misguided belief in spite of the evidence, but rather is convinced and persuaded to have confidence in their belief as a result of evidence. This idea of confident trust in God and His faithfulness is what the biblical authors were trying to convey to their original audience. It is only recently that faith has come to mean something less.

    Understanding this subtle difference between having blind faith and a confident trust allows us to view faith-heavy passages like Hebrews 11 in an entirely different light. By simply replacing the word faith with trust the true meaning and intent of these passages becomes apparent. The great men of faith recorded in Hebrews 11 were not considered righteous because of a misguided superstition in an unseen reality for which there was no proof. They were counted as righteous because they believed God and trusted in Him and His faithfulness to keep His word.

    In concision biblical faith and intellectual reason are not opposed to one another. On the contrary: they are intertwined! It is not irrational to have faith in God when He has given us proof of his faithfulness. Nor is it anti-intellectual to believe that something is true in light of affirming evidence. 

See Also:

Saved by Faith or by Works?

Why does the Bible say that Bats are Birds?

    As someone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture, I must admit that this particular question has baffled me more than any other objection I have faced. After all, if the Bible is God's word, then it must be true. However, if one were to pick up an English Bible today and begin reading through the Old Testament one would quickly find that the Bible—which is supposed to be the infallible Word of God—plainly states that bats are birds! Clearly this is not true. Bats are mammals. So how can one reconcile such an obvious scientific blunder in God's Holy Book? If God's Word is true then how can it promote something so blatantly false?
 
    As it turns out, this conflict between the Bible and modern biology does not stem from a lack of scientific knowledge on the part of the Old Testament, but rather the translation from Hebrew into English.

    The word translated as bird in English Bibles is the Hebrew word 'owph, (עוֹף) which is in fact a much broader term that encompass not only birds, but all winged creatures including insects and bats. Therefore, a more accurate translation would be a creature with wings or a flying animal, not bird. However, this word is most often used in reference to feathered birds, and in the particular case of Leviticus 11:13-19 the majority of the creatures mentioned are in fact birds. The only exception being bats, which are mentioned last. For this reason, English translators chose to render 'owph as bird in English Bibles, though the more liberal usage of the word as it pertains to all winged creatures would be far more accurate.
   
    In the case of Deuteronomy 14:11, the word used to describe clean birds is tsippowr (צִפּוֹר) which specifically refers to sparrows or other small birds that skip about on the ground. This is further clarified by the change in grammar found in Deuteronomy 14:12, which separates the behavioral characteristics of sparrows from the traits of the other flying animals and insects listed in verses 12-20. Furthermore, neither the word tsippowr or 'owph appear in the Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 14:12. This means that the word bird or birds found in some translations is an addition made for the sake of English grammar and is not part of the original text. 
    It is also important to note that in Deuteronomy 14:20 the author returns to the word 'owph to describe clean animals and insects, again testifying to the separate meaning of the specific word tsippowr as it relates to the more general term 'owph in ancient Hebrew. 

    That being said, it is important to view this question in the proper context. In both passages it is not God's intention to classify animals into their modern taxonomic Phylum and Genus. Instead, God is giving the people of Israel clear instructions on what kinds of flying animals symbolically represent life, purity and holiness (clean) and which ones symbolize death and impurity and should be avoided (unclean).

    In short, the Bible is not in error when it places bats among the flying animals that are unsafe to eat. God did not mistakenly identify bats as birds when He gave his Law to the Children of Israel. The confusion arose thousands of years later as a result of translation into a foreign language, and should not cause anyone to lose faith in the inerrant Word of God.

See Also:

Why does the Bible say that Whales are Fish?

God and the Search for Evidence

    

    A common objection to the message of Christianity is the alleged lack of scientific evidence supporting the Bible's claims. Indeed, many people have boldly claimed that they cannot, or will not, believe what the Bible teaches because of the scientific impossibility of miracles. Some even go so far as to claim that modern science has definitively disproved the existence of miracles altogether. Therefore, no reasonable person should believe in man-made myths or legends about supernatural events. Much less God.
    But what of the individual who is open to the possibility that a "higher power" might exist, but needs more proof before they are willing to believe in the God of the Bible? Is it wrong for them to ask for scientific evidence of God's existence? Not at all! However, something that one must realize is that science is limited to explaining the material universe in naturalistic terms alone. Within the mechanism of the scientific method, the material universe is all that exists and everything has a natural explanation. This philosophical presupposition automatically denies the existence of miracles and the supernatural as being fundamentally false. But how does one committed to the naturalistic explanations of the universe know this to be true? Is there any scientific evidence that the material universe is all that exists? This is obviously a claim of absolute truth that falls far beyond the reach of empirical evidence—ie. evidence visible to observation by the senses—and thus cannot be scientifically verified. The philosophical naturalist must therefore concede that their belief in natural explanation is a statement of faith—an unwavering devotion to a belief in the absolute truth that the supernatural does not exist.
    The dilemma one faces in asking science to prove the existence of God is that science assumes that God does not exist from the onset. If the scientific method can only offer natural explanations to those questions that pertain to the material universe, it therefore cannot have any bearing on the supernatural. Thus science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. To demand scientific proof for the existence of God is to ask a material methodology to explain the existence of an immaterial being. Which is something that science simply cannot do. To ask science to prove the existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt is like asking an orange tree to produce apples before you will believe that apples exist!
    This is not to say that there is no scientific evidence pointing to the existence of God. The fine-tuned nature of the universe and life itself points to the existence of God. The existence of immaterial consciousness, thought and transcendent, objective moral truths point to the existence of God. Even history itself points to the existence of God by validating the authenticity of the Bible and its devine claims.
    Before one can be objective in their evaluation of the evidence of God's existence, one must first open their mind to the possibility that the supernatural exists. If one does not recognize the bias of philosophical naturalism within science then one will never be able to see the evidence of God's existence, even though God Himself has made such evidence plainly visible. 

  "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." ~Romans 1:20 New Living Translation (NLT)

See Also:

Is the Resurrection of Jesus Scientifically Impossible?

Creation vs. Evolution: Philosophy or Fact?

Science and the Bible: Darwin vs. Galileo

   

Is the Resurrection of Jesus Scientifically Impossible?

   


    The fact that the foundation of Christianity rests on belief in the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ, does little to validate the faith in  the eyes of many. This is especially true among intelligent persons and the well educated. The objection of the intellectual is not without good reason. After all, how could any educated person believe in miracles? Much less that a man could return to life after being dead and buried for three days?

    While there are many reasons to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the most logical conclusion from a historical perspective, the question remains: Is the resurrection of Jesus scientifically impossible?

    In order to answer this question we must first understand what claims science has to offer in regards to the nature of life in general.
 
    According to Louis Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, life cannot originate from non-life. Yet modern science insists that the process of Abiogenesis is responsible for the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic compounds.

    The term Abiogenesis was first coined by "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Henry Huxley in an attempt to redefine the Laws of Biogenesis. While the Laws of Biogenesis relate to life arising from non-life, Abiogenesis specifically refers to life arising from non-living materials over billions of years of unguided natural selection and gradual evolution—a process which has never been observed in nature.

    That said, the Miller-Urey Experiments of 1952 did succeed in synthesizing amino acids from chemical compounds. However, the results of these experiments are far from conclusive proof of Abiogenesis.
    First of all, the experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions and were therefore far different than the chaotic natural conditions of the primordial earth.
    Secondly, the atmospheric conditions simulated in the lab were based on the scientific understanding of the 1950's. Scientists have since theorized that the atmosphere on earth in the distant past was quite different than those represented in the Miller-Urey Experiments. Since the experiment was contaminated by incorrect data from the beginning, the results of the experiment are likewise contaminated, and do not offer an accurate portrayal of the origin of life.
    Finally, the fact that the amino acids were synthesized in a controlled environment through a process of trial-and-error offers proof that life is not possible without intelligent design. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey used their intelligence to manipulate the environment in such a way that amino acids could form. Without the purposeful guidance of this outside intelligence the experiment would have failed completely. (To say nothing of the fact that the experiment utilized pre-existing materials which would also have had to have formed by chance in a purely naturalistic universe.)

    It can be concluded, therefore, that life cannot originate from non-living materials without some form of intelligent interference from the outside. Yet modern science tells us that the spontaneous, unguided development of life from non-living materials is not only possible, but has actually occurred! Since anything that is non-living is by its very definition dead, one must therefore conclude that life can indeed come from death.

    If modern science tells us that all life originated from death (ie. non-living materials) how then can science legitimately claim that it is impossible for a dead person to come back to life? If one can believe in the miraculous emergence of complex life from non-living materials through purely naturalistic means then, conceivably, one should have no trouble at all believing in the miraculous resurrection of the dead, since it is far more likely for life to return to something that was once living than for life to emerge from non-life through natural processes and random chance.

    In short, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not scientifically impossible. It is extremely improbable—as all miracles are. But it is not impossible. For with God, all things are possible.

 

See Also:

Who is Jesus? 

   

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

The Dying and Rising God: Jesus or Osiris?